Demanding retirement at 70, weeding people out at 50 – the most brazen and deceitful double game of German business and politics

"Too old, too expensive": The brutal truth about job applications from age 50 onwards

Skills shortage? Why companies are systematically weeding out their most valuable staff

Politicians are calling for people to work longer – in extreme cases until age 70 – to prevent the pension system from demographic collapse. At the same time, businesses are loudly complaining about an unprecedented shortage of skilled workers. But the reality of the job market reveals a shocking paradox: those who lose their jobs or want to reorient themselves professionally after the age of 50 often find themselves facing closed doors. Behind polished employer branding facades on LinkedIn and other platforms lies a high degree of systematic age discrimination. Experienced applicants are routinely dismissed as "too expensive" or "too inflexible," while valuable potential remains untapped. This article sheds light on the German economy's double game, exposes common rejection phrases with scientific facts, and shows why this exclusion is not just a personal tragedy, but a ticking time bomb for our social and economic system.

The great lie about long working lives: The paradox that no one in business or politics openly names

Germany is heading towards one of the most severe demographic upheavals in its post-war history. Based on the 2025 microcensus, the Federal Statistical Office has calculated that by 2040, around 13.3 million people of working age will have exceeded the statutory retirement age of 67. This corresponds to almost a third of all people currently available to the German labor market. At the same time, the political debate is in full swing: In the summer of 2025, Economics Minister Katherina Reiche (CDU) publicly stated that Germans could no longer spend a third of their lives in retirement and would have to "work more and longer"—up to a retirement age of 70. According to calculations by the German Economic Institute (IW), the pension insurance system is already facing a funding gap of €34 billion by 2035, which would require a contribution rate of more than 22 percent.

These figures are well-known. What is less openly discussed is the other side of this equation: those who are expected to work longer must also be allowed to work longer. And it is precisely at this point that the system collapses. The demand for a longer working life and the lived practice of systematic exclusion from the age of 50 onwards contradict each other so fundamentally that it cannot be considered a misunderstanding. It must be described as institutionalized hypocrisy, firmly entrenched in both human resources departments and political discourse.

The contradiction in numbers

The data from the Federal Employment Agency paints a clear picture. In 2024, around 642,000 people between the ages of 55 and under 65 were registered as unemployed. The unemployment rate for this group was 6.1 percent in the fall of 2024, only slightly above the overall rate of 6 percent. However, this apparent innocuousness of the raw figure is deceptive: behind it lies a dramatically longer duration of unemployment. Older job seekers are unemployed for an average of 23 weeks before finding a job subject to social security contributions – compared to just 20 weeks for all age groups combined. The German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) has quantified this difference even more clearly: in 2023, older people were unemployed for an average of 108 days longer than younger people.

Furthermore, the structural problems run even deeper than these figures suggest. Between 2014 and 2024, the proportion of older people among all unemployed of working age rose to around a quarter. This means that while more older people are employed than ever before – with 7.8 million people aged 55 to under 65 in jobs subject to social security contributions in 2024, a new record high was reached – those who fall out of this job market find it significantly harder to get back in. The number of those who remain permanently excluded despite their willingness and ability to work is growing. This is not a cyclical phenomenon, but a structural one.

When 45 percent report discrimination

Age discrimination is widespread in Germany, and surveys in recent years have increasingly confirmed this. A representative survey conducted by the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency in March 2025 – with over 2,000 respondents – revealed that 45 percent of people in Germany over the age of 16 have experienced age discrimination at some point in their lives. This most frequently occurs in the workplace: 39 percent of those affected report disadvantages related to employment. Since the establishment of the Anti-Discrimination Agency, it has received more than 8,600 inquiries regarding age discrimination.

The independent Federal Commissioner for Gender Equality, Ferda Ataman, commented on the results unequivocally: “People still believe that older colleagues in the workplace are a burden. That’s nonsense and it harms the economy.” This statement is not just a moral judgment, it’s an economic one. A previous survey by the career network Xing among 1,000 participants showed that 40 percent of 50- to 60-year-olds stated that they had experienced age discrimination in job applications. Around 28 percent had the concrete feeling that they were being disadvantaged by a potential employer because of their age. The General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) has explicitly prohibited age discrimination since 2006 – however, its practical effect in the application process is limited because discrimination is rarely documented there, and the number of unreported cases remains correspondingly high.

The five rejection formulas and their true meaning

In the everyday practice of job application rejections, a repertoire of phrases has become established that sound like neutral justifications, but in their totality reveal a clear pattern of age discrimination. It is worthwhile to decode these formulas economically.

The statement "too expensive" is often not based on calculation, but rather on assumption. Older applicants are automatically associated with higher salary expectations, without any individual interviews. This assumption ignores the fact that many people in the second half of their careers are quite willing to accept a lower salary for a return to work or a career change – as long as the conditions are right. Furthermore, the value of experience is usually drastically underestimated. Someone with thirty years of professional experience reduces the onboarding time, the error rate, and the risk of poor hiring decisions for the hiring company. These invisible cost savings are not factored into the blanket rejection of applicants deemed "too expensive.".

The formula "not flexible enough" works in a similar way. It assumes a rigidity in people over 50 that is not empirically proven, but is rarely questioned as a justification. In reality, it is often a coded message: Employers are looking for someone willing to work overtime without complaint, take on tasks outside their job description, and forgo any say in decision-making. Older employees with increased self-confidence and clear ideas about appropriate working conditions are considered "difficult" in this context.

“Doesn’t fit into the team” is the most polite form of age discrimination. In practice, it often means that the candidate is older than their immediate supervisor – and this genuinely creates unease in flat hierarchies. Not for the applicant, but for the decision-makers. Studies show that the psychological barrier to managing an older employee is significant in German companies. This is not a characteristic of the applicant, but a management problem.

The accusation of being "technically out of touch" is statistically speaking simply wrong in many cases, but is rarely verified by concrete tests. ZEW research data shows that older computer users in German companies are significantly more productive than older non-computer users – and also more productive than employees under 30. The stereotype of the tech-inept senior employee cannot be empirically sustained, but it has a surprisingly long lifespan.

"Overqualified" is ultimately the most honest of the evasive phrases because it at least hints at the real reason: fear. The fear that someone with more experience, a larger network, and a broader perspective will challenge one's own position. This isn't a labor market policy problem; it's a leadership culture problem—and a sign of the deep insecurity that prevails in German companies where leadership is defined by maintaining status rather than by professional expertise.

What research really says about productivity in old age

The widespread assumption that productivity inevitably declines with age is viewed with considerably more nuance in academia than in human resources departments. Two case studies from the Munich Center for the Economics of Aging at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy reach a clear conclusion: In a truck assembly plant, productivity even increases slightly up to the age of 65. At a financial services provider, older employees are more productive than younger ones when performing complex tasks, while a slight decline is observed in simple, routine activities. The researchers conclude that experience not only compensates for the decline in cognitive and physical abilities but can even positively influence productivity in suitable work contexts.

The message from a ZEW study based on nearly seven million employees and over 8,500 companies is even clearer: Older employees aged 50 and over are no less productive than their colleagues aged 30 to 49. On the contrary, older computer users prove to be significantly more productive than older non-computer users – further refuting the stereotype of technophobia. A Mercedes-Benz study, analyzed by Axel Börsch-Supan and Matthias Weiss from the Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging, concludes that while older employees occasionally make more minor errors, they cause significantly fewer costly mistakes – because they remain calmer in stressful situations and can draw on their experience. Avoiding major errors in automotive assembly translates into cost savings. That's a tangible economic advantage.

The ZEW's findings on corporate personnel policy are particularly relevant: Older employees are significantly more productive when they work in age-diverse teams, are assigned tasks appropriate to their age, and their strengths – experience, judgment, and network knowledge – are specifically utilized. In such companies, the productivity of younger employees also increases significantly because they benefit from the expertise of their older colleagues. Knowledge transfer between generations is not merely a social policy benefit; it is a powerful economic lever.

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations

The Employer Branding Theater and its Rift

Few other areas of modern corporate image have become as detached from reality as so-called employer branding on social networks like LinkedIn. There, HR departments and corporate communications teams celebrate the advantages of their work culture daily: work-life balance, diversity and inclusion, lifelong learning, and appreciation of experience. This is professionally communicative and visually appealing. It is also, to a considerable extent, a lie.

LinkedIn itself has found in its own research that work-life balance is now the second most important factor in the job selection process. Companies sending this signal are therefore very aware of the impact they have on the job market. But for whom does this work-life balance apply? For whom does this promise of appreciation hold true? When 40 percent of 50- to 60-year-olds report having experienced age discrimination in the application process, the gap between social media presence and actual practice is no longer just a gray area – it is structural dishonesty.

This is also economically relevant because employer branding investments are substantial. Companies spend millions on campaigns, career pages, and content strategies designed to create an image of openness and diversity. When these images are tested for their accuracy by an experienced, middle-aged female applicant—and fail—it's not just a disappointment. It's reputational damage that has long-term consequences in the increasingly transparent world of digital feedback. Platforms like Kununu make visible what used to remain hidden.

The pension system and the demographic time bomb

Anyone who considers the pension debate and the practice of age discrimination separately will not fully understand either. The demographic implications are clear. By 2040, around 13.3 million people of working age – almost 30 percent of today's workforce – will have reached retirement age. A new study by the German Economic Institute (IW) has calculated that by 2036, far more baby boomers will be reaching retirement age than young people will be entering the workforce – ultimately resulting in a potential labor shortage of more than four million people. While in 2015, 20.7 percent of the workforce was 55 years and older, this figure is expected to exceed a quarter by 2025.

The fiscal consequences are severe. According to calculations by the German Economic Institute (IW), the pension insurance system faces a funding gap of €34 billion in 2035 if no structural reforms are implemented. Even today, the government subsidy for the pension insurance system accounts for almost a fifth of the entire federal budget. Against this backdrop, the German government's pension commission has begun deliberating on a gradual increase in the retirement age to 70. Economist Holger Schäfer from the employer-affiliated German Economic Institute (IW) has pointed out that this measure is already too late to address the acute problem of the baby boomer generation – the transition period for the previous increase from 65 to 67 alone lasted over 20 years.

The crucial question – and it is remarkably consistently ignored in the political debate – is: How is someone supposed to work until 70 if they are effectively no longer hired after 50? The labor force participation rate of 60- to 64-year-olds has indeed increased, from 53 percent in 2015 to 68 percent in 2025. But these figures primarily reflect those who already have a job and have kept it. Re-entry into the workforce after unemployment or a career break in this age group is a completely different story.

Poverty in old age is a systemic consequence, not an individual fate

The social consequences of this structural exclusion are already evident in the data. In December 2024, 1.26 million people received basic income support for the elderly and those with reduced earning capacity – an increase of 4.1 percent compared to the previous year. Recipients of basic income support for the elderly account for 58.6 percent of all basic income support recipients. Nearly 740,000 people received basic income support for the elderly in December 2024 – an increase of 7.1 percent compared to the previous month. These figures are rising. And they are not rising by chance, but as a direct consequence of employment histories that were abruptly interrupted at a certain age and were never able to build a foundation for sufficient pension entitlements.

The causal relationship is simple: Anyone who loses their job at age 54 and cannot find suitable employment before retirement accrues little to no pension entitlements. The gap in employment between the ages of 54 and 67 – a total of 13 years – results in a permanent reduction in pension entitlements under the German pension system, a reduction that cannot be compensated for by any subsequent payment. Therefore, in Germany, a significant portion of poverty among the elderly is not a consequence of a lack of motivation or ability to work, but rather a consequence of structural exclusion during the middle working years. This is a politically inconvenient fact that is rarely explicitly addressed in the pension debate.

The potential that one doesn't want to tap into

Labor market research agrees that the employment potential of older people in Germany is systematically underutilized. The labor force participation rate of those over 65 in Germany is significantly below the OECD average. OECD-wide comparisons show that countries with more flexible employment models, company-sponsored training programs for older workers, and without rigid age stereotypes achieve considerably better employment rates in the 55-70 age group. The OECD, in its Employment Outlook 2025, explicitly warned that population aging in the OECD area will lead to an 8 percent decline in the working-age population by 2060 and will increase public pension and healthcare spending by 3 percent of GDP.

Germany faces a specific challenge in unlocking its existing potential because its corporate culture is still heavily influenced by an implicit youth-oriented principle. The KOFA report by the German Economic Institute (IW) shows that in shortage occupations alone, around two million older employees will retire within the next ten years. In some sectors—such as healthcare, construction, and freight transport—the departure of older workers affects nearly a third of the entire workforce. At the same time, these sectors are already struggling to fill vacancies. The combination of actively excluding older applicants and simultaneously losing the existing older workforce through retirement is economically irrational.

The double standards of social media and what they reveal about corporate culture

It would be too simplistic to dismiss the phenomenon of contradictory employer branding as a mere communication strategy without deeper meaning. In fact, what companies post on LinkedIn and what they practice in their application processes reflects a deep divide within the organization itself. The communications department and the recruiting team often pursue different priorities. Communications sells an image of openness that isn't delivered operationally. This isn't malicious intent in isolated cases; it's systemic – and it's so persistent precisely because it's rarely explicitly identified as a problem.

The data from the anti-discrimination agency paints a precise picture. A 55-year-old IT expert who is told by her supervisor that she is "too old" and whose contract is subsequently not renewed – this is not an isolated incident, this is commonplace. And it is also a blatant contradiction to the diversity promises that the same company might communicate on LinkedIn for Equal Pay Day or Older Persons Day. This duplicity is immediately apparent to experienced applicants and has consequences: it destroys trust in the promise of corporate culture as a whole and generates justified cynicism towards any kind of institutional communication.

Solutions that go beyond mere declarations of intent

Anyone who wants to seriously engage in the debate about older workers must go beyond mere declarations of intent. Concrete structural measures are available and have been proven. Companies that actively promote age-diverse teams demonstrably experience increases in productivity – not only among older employees, but also among younger ones. Age-appropriate workplace design – from ergonomic equipment to task allocation based on strengths – significantly increases the productivity contribution of older employees. These measures cost money, but considerably less than the long-term costs of employee turnover, knowledge loss, and skills shortages.

At the political level, an amendment to the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG), as already demanded by the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, would be necessary to strengthen protection against age discrimination in the application process. The demand to enshrine the prohibition of age discrimination in the Basic Law (Germany's constitution) goes beyond mere symbolic politics, provided it is supported by concrete legal avenues and a relaxation of the burden of proof. Tax incentives for companies that demonstrably hire and train older long-term unemployed individuals would be another lever. The Federal Ministry of Labor has shown with its "Perspective 50plus" program that targeted support can be effective – the fact that these programs currently exist in a significantly weaker form than the need would suggest is a political decision with considerable economic costs.

An economy that throws away its most valuable asset

The term "skills shortage" has been used excessively in Germany for years. It's employed to justify immigration, to legitimize training initiatives, and to sell pension reforms. But it's rarely linked to what might be the simplest part of the solution: not excluding those already trained, experienced, healthy, and willing to work in mid-career. The paradox of the German labor market isn't that there are too few qualified people. It's that a significant portion of these qualified individuals are pushed out of the market after a certain age—by implicit age barriers, by a corporate culture that confuses youth with competence, and by a political narrative that pits productivity against the pension entitlements of older workers instead of addressing the exclusion for what it is.

The contradiction between the demand for retirement at 70 and the practice of no longer offering jobs to people over 50 is not a systemic oversight. It is the system itself. And anyone who wants to resolve this contradiction must first be prepared to name it bluntly. The figures are available. The studies are there. Those affected are speaking out. What's missing is the collective will—in companies, in HR departments, in parliaments—to stop smiling away this contradiction and instead treat it for what it is: one of the most costly and unjustified market failures in the German employment system.